SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY ts behavior condition actors performed their Finally,participants rated the synchrony of the exercises the cted to d HK$30 cash y,and the rved along a s age performance of individuals in their group high which they perceived both actors and observers s to be“in-grour of obs rs Results and act first in of th ewards that a receive i ave b D=0.5 synchronous behay M= roup they were ing of the a F(1.136)=)and they ere told tha rewards 95.F1.136 127.27.D 001):the inte ctio was no winning actor group. to that fomity by Levav 0.76,F1,70)=80.04,p<001,m 53.Similarly,observers hat th ons.They were told that they ha 510 in more.the Donation to othe nation be and the Breas Cane charities (to which other were likel onate）an wn ch were less e ged from SHK2 to SHK19 n type The articip sand partici pant role ence scores yielded main effects o n pa and oh tion to Donate to Well-Known Versus Lesser Known Charities as a Function of Behavioral Synchrony and Outcome Independence:Experiment4 known charities 638批 68838 282 wn charities 39 号888品 487跳 品8邵 478提 -88款 independent judges and (b) each member of the winning group would receive a cash reward of HK$30 (approximately US$4). In asynchronous behavior conditions, actors performed their exer￾cises without being instructed to do them synchronously, and they were told that each of them would get a HK$30 cash prize if the average performance of individuals in their group was the highest. The criteria for judging synchronous behavior included the extent to which the behaviors are synchronous, whether the movements were correct, and the extent to which participants applied efforts to the exercises (the latter two criteria were used to judge the indi￾vidual performance of those in the asynchronous behavior condi￾tions). As a manipulation of observers’ perception of the tie between their outcomes and actors’ outcomes, observers were first in￾formed of the rewards that actors would receive in synchronous (asynchronous) behavior conditions. Then, in dependent-outcome conditions, they were told that if the group they were observing won, they would attain a reward equivalent to that of the actors. In both independent-outcome and asynchronous behavior conditions, however, they were told that rewards would be allocated to actors alone but that, to be fair, each group of observers would be entered into a lottery and that the lottery-winning group would receive a reward equivalent to that of the winning actor group. After this exercise stage, all participants completed a donation task similar to that used to assess conformity by Levav and Zhu (2009). Participants were given HK$10 (approximately US$1.25) that they could use for donating money to a list of six nonprofit organizations. They were told that they could decide to give any amount they wished to each organization. If they donated less than $10 in total, they could keep the rest for themselves, and if they wanted to donate more, they could do so using their own money. Three of the organizations (the Red Cross, the Society for Protec￾tion of Children, and the Breast Cancer Foundation) were well known in Hong Kong, whereas the other three (AIDS Organiza￾tion, the Down Syndrome Association, and the Arthritis and Rheu￾matism Foundation) were less known. This difference was con￾firmed on the basis of pretesting. Thirty participants from the same subject population rated the organizations’ familiarity along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very). These participants were significantly more familiar with the three well-known charities (M 3.52, SD 1.50) than with the three lesser known ones (M 2.21, SD 0.97), F(1, 29) 38.07, p  .001, 2 .57. Finally, participants rated the synchrony of the exercises they performed or observed along a scale from 1 (not at all synchro￾nous) to 5 (very synchronous). Then, they reported the extent to which they perceived both actors and observers to be “in-group” members along a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Participants were then debriefed and dismissed. The money col￾lected in this study was actually sent to the specific charities that the participants had designated. Results Manipulation checks. Participants judged the exercise to have been performed more synchronously in synchronous behav￾ior conditions (M 3.80, SD 0.53) than in asynchronous behavior conditions (M 2.00, SD 0.45), F(1, 136) 355.63, p  .001, 2 .72, and this was equally true of both actors (3.80 vs. 2.05, F(1, 136) 142.31, p  .001) and observers (3.79 vs. 1.95, F(1, 136) 127.27, p  .001); the interaction was not significant, F(1, 136) .20, p  .65. Actors were more inclined to perceive both themselves and observers to be in-group members when the observers’ outcome depended on their performance (M 3.76, SD 0.72) than when it did not (M 2.11, SD 0.76), F(1, 70) 80.04, p  .001, 2 .53. Similarly, observers were more inclined to perceive both themselves and actors to be in-group members in the former condition (M 3.43, SD 0.59) than in the latter (M 1.78, SD 0.56), F(1, 66) 128.71, p  .001, 2 .66. These differences did not depend on whether the actors’ behavior was synchronous or asynchronous (ps  .20). Donations. Participants’ conformity to others’ donation be￾havior was inferred from the difference between their donations to well-known charities (to which others were likely to donate) and their donations to lesser known charities (to which others were less likely to donate). Seven participants did not contribute anything. Other participants’ donations ranged from $HK2 to $HK19. These difference scores, along with the mean donations to each type of charity separately, are summarized in Table 4 as a function of behavior/outcome relatedness and participant role. Analyses of the difference scores yielded main effects of both participant role, F(1, Table 4 Actors’ and Observers’ Disposition to Donate to Well-Known Versus Lesser Known Charities as a Function of Behavioral Synchrony and Outcome Independence: Experiment 4 Variable Behavior/outcome relatedness Synchronous behavior/dependent outcome Synchronous behavior/independent outcome Asynchronous behavior Well-known charities Actor 6.12 (2.43)a 6.85 (2.38)a 4.29 (2.57)b Observer 5.63 (2.56)a,b 3.16 (2.29)c 5.65 (2.06)b Lesser known charities Actor 3.00 (2.52)a 2.58 (2.02)a 4.38 (2.75)b Observer 3.72 (2.38)a,b 5.68 (2.61)c 4.10 (1.74)b Difference Actor 3.12 (3.61)a 4.27 (3.45)a 0.10 (4.17)b Observer 1.91 (4.41)a,b 2.52 (4.24)c 1.55 (2.68)b Note. Cells with unlike subscripts differ at p  .05. Standard deviations are indicated in parentheses. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SYNCHRONY AND CONFORMITY 69